Government of the United States of America vs.

Purganan
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
PANGANIBAN, J.
Facts:
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the
United States Government, through diplomatic
channels, sent to the Philippine Government
documents requesting the extradition of Mark B.
Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.
Upon receipt of the documents, the secretary of
foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary
of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action.
Upon learning of the request for his extradition,
Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila.
The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ)
from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition.
The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the
SOJ in a Petition before the SC.
Initially, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
SOJ, the Court reconsidered and reversed its earlier
Decision.
It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice
and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process. This Resolution has become final
and executory.
The Government of the United States of America,
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC,
the appropriate Petition for Extradition.
The Petition alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an
arrest warrant issued by the United States District
Court in connection with the following charges:
(1) conspiracy to defraud the United States;
(2) tax evasion;
(3) wire fraud;

(4) false statements; and

(5) illegal campaign contributions.
In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition
prayed for his immediate arrest.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed
before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,
which prayed that the application for an arrest warrant
be set for hearing.
The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the
case for hearing.
After the hearing, the court required the parties to
submit their memoranda.
In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought that in case a
warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail.
Thereafter, the court issued an order, directing the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for
his temporary liberty.
After he had surrendered his passport and posted the
required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional
liberty.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
(1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing
before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and
(2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty
while the extradition proceedings are pending.
Held:
Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition
As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a
higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court
has been given, through a motion for reconsideration,
a chance to correct the errors imputed to it.
This rule, though, has certain exceptions:
(1) when the issue raised is purely of law,
(2) when public interest is involved,
(3) in case of urgency, or
(4) when the questions raised are the same as
those that have already been squarely argued

and exhaustively passed upon by the lower

court.
The issues in the present case involve pure questions
of law that are of public interest. Hence, a motion for
reconsideration may be dispensed with.
Five Postulates of Extradition
(1)Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the
Suppression of Crime.
Extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of
suppressing crime by facilitating the arrest and the
custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the
other.
In this era of globalization, easier and faster
international travel, and an expanding ring of
international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to
be an isolationist state.
We need to cooperate with other states in order to
improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own
country.
(2)The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to
the Accused
Our duly authorized representatives signature on an
extradition treaty signifies our full faith that the
accused will be given, upon extradition, all relevant
and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will
take place therein.
(3)The Proceedings Are Sui Generis.
Extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature.
Criminal Proceedings
calls into operation all the
rights of an accused as
guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights
involves the determination
of the guilt or innocence of
an accused
involves a full-blown trial

Extradition Proceedings
sui generis - in a class by
itself - does call into
operation all the rights of an
accused
under the Bill of Rights
does not involve the
determination of the guilt or
innocence of an accused
summary in nature

requires proof beyond

reasonable doubt for
conviction
judgment becomes
executory upon being
rendered final

may be ordered extradited

upon showing of the
existence of a prima facie
case
our courts may adjudge an
individual extraditable but
the President has the final
discretion to extradite him

(4)Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.

Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty
promotes comity with the requesting state.
We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in
good faith with our obligations under the Treaty.
Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in a
position to deliver the accused, should it be found
proper.
(5)There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
Persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight
risks.
Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if
only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the
requesting country.
Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing Before
the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?
No.
(1)On the basis of Section 6 of PD 1069
Jimenez argues that he should not be hurriedly and
arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty
without due process.
Section 6 of PD 1069 states that:
o Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the
presiding judge may issue a warrant for the
immediate arrest of the accused which may be
served anywhere within the Philippines if it
appears to the presiding judge that the
immediate arrest and temporary detention of
the accused will, best serve the ends of justice.

Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the

word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused.
This qualification would be rendered nugatory by
setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant.
Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be
considered immediate.
By using the phrase if it appears, the law further
conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at
such early stage.
The court is expected merely to get a good first
impression a prima facie finding- sufficient to make a
speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and
detention of the accused.
(2)On the basis of the Constitution
Even Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution, which is
invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a
hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
It provides:
o The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge
after
examination
under
oath
or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the
examination - under oath or affirmation - of
complainants and the witnesses they may produce.
There is no requirement to notify and hear the
accused before the issuance of warrants of
arrest.
Is Respondent Entitled to Bail?

Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, states:

o All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua
when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required.
SEC. 4. of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, states:
o Bail, a matter of right; exception. - All persons in
custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of
right, with sufficient sureties, or released on
recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule
(a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision
secures the right to bail of all persons, including those
sought to be extradited.

Extradition
Different
from
Ordinary
Criminal
Proceedings
As suggested by the use of the word conviction the
constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well
as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies
only when a person has been arrested and detained
for violation of Philippine criminal laws.
It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because
extradition courts do not render judgments of
conviction or acquittal.
The constitutional right to bail flows from the
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused
who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as

thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his

guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will
not apply to a case like extradition, where the
presumption of innocence is not at issue.
Extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from
the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He
should apply for bail before the courts trying the
criminal cases against him, not before the extradition
court.
No Violation of Due Process
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be
heard but the doctrine does not always call for a prior
opportunity to be heard.
Where the circumstances such as those present in an
extradition case - call for it, a subsequent opportunity
to be heard is enough.
It is also worth noting that before the US government
requested the extradition of Jimenez, proceedings had
already been conducted in that country. But because
he left the state before those proceedings could be
completed, it was hindered from continuing with the
due processes prescribed under its laws.
His invocation of due process now has thus become
hollow. He already had that opportunity in the
requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.
Exceptions to the No Bail Rule
Bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.
Nevertheless, to best serve the ends of justice, after a
potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under
the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and
granted as an exception, only upon a
clear and convincing showing
(1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be
a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances.

Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances

that are compelling enough for the Court to grant his
request for provisional release on bail.
(1) Alleged Disenfranchisement
o While his extradition was pending, Jimenez was
elected as a member of the House of
Representatives.
o On that basis, he claims that his detention will
disenfranchise his Manila district of 600,000
residents.
o People v. Jalosjos
When the voters of his district elected the
accused-appellant to Congress, they did
so with full awareness of the limitations
on his freedom of action.
The functions and duties of the office are
not substantial distinctions which lift him
from the class of prisoners interrupted in
their freedom and restricted in liberty of
movement.
(2) Anticipated Delay
o Jimenez further contends that because the
extradition proceedings are lengthy, it would be
unfair to confine him during the pendency of the
case.
o Extradition cases are summary in nature. They
are resorted to merely to determine whether the
extradition petition and its annexes conform to
the Extradition Treaty, not to determine guilt or
innocence.
(3) Not a Flight Risk?
o Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk.
To support this claim, he stresses that he has
not fled the country.
o True, he has not actually fled during the
preliminary stages of the request for his
extradition. Yet, this fact cannot be taken to
mean that he will not flee as the process moves
forward to its conclusion, as he hears the

footsteps of the requesting government inching

closer and closer.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC
Order is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent

Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted by private respondent is

CANCELLED.